1
THE EUROPEANIZATION OF TURKISH SECURITY CULTURE: A REALITY OR MYTH?
A Master’s Thesis
by
SERKAN BULUT
Department of International Relations İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University
Ankara September 2010
2
THE EUROPEANIZATION OF TURKISH SECURITY CULTURE: A REALITY OR MYTH?
The Institute of Economics and Social Sciences of
İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University
by
Serkan BULUT
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS
in
THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS İHSAN DOĞRAMACI BİLKENT UNIVERSITY
ANKARA September 2010
3
I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in International Relations.
---
Assist. Prof. Dr. Tarık Oğuzlu Supervisor
I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in International Relations.
---
Assist. Prof. Dr. Ioannis Grigoriadis Examining Committee Member
I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in International Relations.
---
Assist. Prof. Dr. Gülgün Tuna Examining Committee Member
Approval of the Institute of Economics and Social Sciences
--- Prof. Dr. Erdal Erel Director
iii
ABSTRACT
THE EUROPEANIZATION OF TURKISH SECURITY CULTURE: A REALITY OR MYTH?
Bulut,Serkan
M.A., Department of International Relations Supervisor: Assist. Prof. Dr. Tarık Oğuzlu
September 2010
Turkish journey to Europe has a history longer than 40 years however especially in the last 10 years more and more scholars started to study “Europeanization of Turkey” especially the foreign policy dimension. This thesis aims at contributing the growing Europeanization literature by looking at the degree of Europeanization in Turkish Security Culture. The traditional realpolitik nature of Turkish Security Culture has shown signs of change in the last decade especially in terms of style and the process dimensions and more European means are utilized by Turkish policy makers. This new situation creates a critical question for anyone interested in Turkish politics: do those changes observed in Turkish Security Culture mean a European transformation has taken place? After explain and comparing the European and Realpolitik Security cultures, this thesis shows that Turkish Security Culture has undergone a change in terms of the style security matters are handles and in terms of processes involved, yet the ultimate goals Turkey pursuing are still defined in terms of realpolitik mindset. True Europeanization requires pursuit of European ends with European means and against this background, Turkish Security Culture, which desires to achieve realpolitik ends but wits European means, does not fit in to the definition of European Security Culture.
Keywords: Europeanization, Security, Turkish Security Culture, Realpolitik,
iv
ÖZET
TÜRK GÜVENLİK KÜLTÜRÜNÜN AVRUPALILAŞMASI: GERÇEK Mİ EFSANE Mİ?
Bulut,Serkan
Yüksek Lisans, Uluslararası İlişkiler Bölümü Tez Yöneticisi: Asist. Prof. Dr. Tarık Oğuzlu
Eylül 2010
Türkiye’nin Avrupa yolculuğu 40 yıldan daha uzun bir geçmişe sahiptir ancak özellikle son 10 yılda çok daha fazla akademisyen Türkiye'nin Avrupalılaşmasını, özellikle de dış politika boyutunu çalışmaya başladı. Bu tez büyümekte olan Avrupalılaşma literatürüne Türkiye’nin Güvenlik Kültürün Avrupalılaşması konusunu araştırarak katkıda bulunmaya çalışmaktadır. Türk Güvenlik Kültürünün geleneksel Realpolitik doğası, özelliklede son on yılda, tarz ve süreç açısında değişim sinyalleri vermekte ve çok daha fazla Avrupai yöntemler kullanılmaya başlandı Türk politika yapıcıları tarafından. Bu yeni durum Türk siyaseti ile ilgilenen tüm kesimler için kritik bir soru ortaya çıkarmıştır: Gözlemlenen bu değişimler Türk Güvenlik Kültürünün Avrupalılaştığı anlamına mı gelmektedir? Bu tez, Avrupa Güvenlik Kültürü ve Realpolitik Güvenlik Kültürlerini karşılaştırdıktan sonra Türk Güvenlik Kültüründe güvenlik meselelerinin ele alındığı biçim ve gerçekleşen süreçler açısından çeşitli değişimler olduğu ancak Türkiye’nin ulaşmayı amaçladığı nihai hedeflerin halen Realpolitik bakış açısı ile tanımlandığını göstermektedir. Gerçek Avrupalılaşma Avrupai hedeflerin Avrupai araçlar ile elde edilmesini gerektirmektedir ve şu anki duruma bakıldığında Realpolitik hedeflere Avrupai araçlar ile ulaşmayı öngören Türk güvenlik Kültürü Avrupa güvenlik Kültürü çerçevesine uymamaktadır.
Anahtar kelimeler: Avrupalılaşma, güvenlik, Türk Güvenlik Kültürü, Realpolitik,
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The preparation and writing of this thesis was a long learning process form me and in this long process I received personal and Professional help from many great people to whom I owe deep gratitude.
First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my thesis supervisor Assist. Prof. Tarık Oğuzlu for his invaluable contributions to my intellectual formation; and I am deeply grateful to him for his special guidance and encouragement throughout this long process. My studies with him were most productive and enlightening for me. I know that his support will be with me wherever I go.
Special thanks to my dear wife Merve Şanlı Bulut and my parents Muhsin and Meryem Bulut who always stood by my side no matter what. Even though I have been away from them for long durations, I have always felt their strong support.
Also, I extend my sincere thanks to Assist. Prof. Dr. Gülgün Tuna and Assist. Prof. Ioannis N. Grigoriadis for their useful insightful comments and useful arguments about my work. Without their valuable suggestions, comments and ideas I would not be able to improve my work.
Last but not least, I am forever in dept to my friends for their support, friendship and inspiration while I was preparing this thesis.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT...iii ÖZET...iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...…...v TABLE OF CONTENTS...…vi LIST OF FIGURES…….……….………...ix LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...xCHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION……….1
CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS…………....6
2.1 Security and Identity:………6
2.1.1 Understanding Security……….…..7
2.1.2 Globalization and transformation of Security…………...11
2.2 Theoretical Approaches to Security and Transformation…….…..…14
2.2.1 The [Neo]-Realist Approach to Security………..14
2.2.1.1 Transformation of Security Culture and Neo-realism……….…………19
2.2.1.2 Epilogue to [neo]-Realist Security………….20
2.2.2 Liberalism and Security………...….21
2.2.2.1 Democratic Peace Theory………..………….24
2.2.2.2 Transformation of Security/Culture and Liberalism...27
2.2.3 Critical Theory and Critical Security………29
2.2.4 The English School, International Society and Security……….….31
2.2.5 Constructivism and Constructivist Security………….…34
CHAPTER III: SECURITY UNDESTANDING IN TRANSFORMATION: UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE & EXPLAINING THE CHANGE!...42
3.1 National Security Culture and Identity (NSCI)………..…43
vii
3.1.2 National Culture………...47
3.1.3 Why NSCI is important?...50
3.1.4 NSCI and transformation……….…………52
3.2 How can the transformation in Security (Culture and Identity) be explained?...54
3.2.1 Katzenstein Model of Transformation………..57
3.2.2 Rieker Model of Transformation (Europeanization of National Security Understanding)……….58
3.2.3 Turkish Example………..60
3.3 Indicators of Transformation………..………61
3.3.1 Change in terms of Style………..61
3.3.2 Change in terms of Process………..……62
3.3.3 Change in terms of Expected Outcomes……...…………63
CHAPTER IV: DIFFERENT WORLDS, DIFFERENT MINDS: EUROPEAN SECURITY CULTURE vs. REALPOLITIK SECURITY CULTURE………..………64
4.1 European Security Understanding: ESCI at a glance………66
4.1.1 What is Europe?...66
4.1.2 European Security Understanding………...…71
4.2 Realpolitik Security Understanding………...72
CHAPTER V: INDICATORS OF AND CHALLENGES TO THE TRANSFORMATION IN TURKEY’S SECURITY CULTURE………...76
5.1 Traditional Aspects of Turkish Security Culture………77
5.1.1 Historical background………..77
5.1.1.1 Ottoman Legacy……….77
5.1.1.2 Sévres syndrome……….…79
5.1.1.3 Republican Party Era……….…….80
5.1.1.4 Cold War Period……….……81
5.1.1.5 Post Cold War Period……….83
5.2 European Transformation (Europeanization) in Turkish Security Culture ……….86
5.2.1 Describing European Transformation in Turkish Security Culture: Indicators of Transformation………86
5.2.1.1 Europeanization of Turkish Security Culture in terms of style……….86
5.2.1.2 Europeanization of Turkish Security Culture in terms of process……….89
5.2.1.3 Europeanization of Turkish Security Culture in terms of expected outcomes……..………91
5.2.2 Explaining the European Transformation in Turkish Security Culture: What motivates the transformation?...93
5.2.2.1 Dynamics of EU Accession Process………..93
5.2.2.2 Domestic Politics: Justice and Development Party factor………..95
viii
5.2.2.3 Relations with the US: Soft balancing a Hard Power……….97 5.2.2.4 Ever Increasing threats in/from
Middle East………101
CHAPTER IV: CONCLUSION………..………103 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY………108
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Katzenstein Model of transformation in Security………....66 2. Rieker Model of Transformation: Europeanization of National Security
Culture and Identity………..………67 3. Europeanization of National Security Culture and Identity: Turkish
x
ABBREVIATIONS
CFSP Common Foreign and Security policy
CIA Central Intelligence Agency
EEC European Economic Community
ESDP European Security and Defense Policy
ESCI European Security Culture and Identity
ESI European Security Identity
EU European Union
IAEA International Atomic Energy Association
JDP Justice and Development Party
PKK Kurdish Workers Party
NSC National Security Council
NSCI National Security Culture and Identity
SIPRI Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
TSC Turkish Security Culture
UN United Nations
USA United States of America
USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
WEU Western European Union
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
“The search for security is primordial, and never before in history has human society faced the multidirectional challenges that will predictably develop in the coming decades. Our times demand the very best efforts from those who study security, for world politics today is hounded not only by traditional interstate conflicts but also by nuclear-armed regional threats, ever more innovative and dangerous terrorist strategies, new problems arising from the dynamics of globalization, the challenges of inflamed religious and ideological extremism, the politics of rage provoked by obscene disparities of wealth and opportunity, and all the complexities caused by the momentum of global environmental change” (Booth 2005:35).
In the last fifty years Europe has undergone a tremendous economic and geopolitical transformation the architects of the European Union (EU) hardly could have imagined. Suffered the unprecedented destruction of the World War, the European states were brought together to create a common future in which the destiny of one another will depend on each other. From the corridors of the Palazzo
dei Conservatori where Rome Treaty came into life to headquarters in Brussels, from initial steps to create common economic sphere in 1950’s to ensure deep
2
social political integration in 90’s, step by step, Europe walked the path of integration, with slow and cautious enlargement steps. “The political dissolution of the East-West divide has left Europe scrambling to redefine its relation to Eastern Europe, both in terms of the long-awaited enlargement to the east and in terms of a real foreign policy toward Russia, Asia and Africa (Burgess, 2003).
While Europe was reorganizing itself and trying to solidify the ties that hold Europe together through enlargement and deepening economic-political integration, Turkey, wanted to be a part of the new Europe and an equal member of the emerging community/union
Since 1959, the application for associate membership to European Economic Community (EEC), respective Turkish governments spent time and money to carry European norms and standards to Turkey, which in return were expected to carry Turkey to EU. As a natural and desired consequence of this process, many aspects of Turkish economic and political life evolved in line with European expectations, which can also be called as “Europeanization”. Turkish Security mind-set and security practices or “Turkish Security Culture (TSC)” as a whole was no exception to that.
Since 1990’s and especially after 2000, we have seen a significant increase in scholarly work dealing with Turkish-EU relations and an important portion of this work concentrated on Europeanization of different aspect of Turkish political life. As a contribution to this growing literature, this thesis examines Turkish Security Culture and tries to see if it has undergone a “European” transformation as a result of which TSC would evolve from its Realpolitik mind-set to the European mind-set.
3
This study sees the nature of TSC as a “defensive Realpolitik” one and asks the following question: Is there a European transformation (Europeanization) in TSC (with which Turkey might be moving away from Realpolitik Security Culture to European Security Culture)?
It attempts at answering this question by describing the ongoing developments and changes in TSC in line with Europeanization process and it continues with discussion of the indicators and possible reasons of such a transformation. In doing so, it touches upon the historical origins and development of TSC to provide a better understanding as to why Turkey ended up with such a security culture and based on the historical dimensions as well as geopolitical reasons this thesis voice the claim that the transformation witnessed in Turkish Security Culture is limited at best as Turkey is still pursuing realpolitik goals in its region, only with more “European means” this time. According to the conceptualization of European Security Culture in this thesis, to achieve a true European Security Culture, a state should be pursuing “European ends” (such as spreading the common norms, seeking a normative and ideation transformation etc.) with “European means” (non-military channels, education, integration, economic relations etc.)
The methodology followed for this research relies on description of the facts and explanation of possible causes behind, in which the emphasis is on estimation rather than testing. The difficulty of measuring or testing Security Culture stands in the way as an obstacle and presents itself as a limitation for this type of research. Available secondary data from media (newspapers, news agencies, TV and radio channels and all other and eligible forms) books, monographs, articles from
4
periodical academic journals, and some primary data from declarations, speeches, press releases, and official unclassified documents published in the web-pages of the various governmental and non-governmental bodies are used to present information and verify claims and justify arguments.
The chapters of the thesis are designed in a way to allow a broad start on security and narrow it down to security culture in general and Turkish Security Culture in particular. Starting with general theoretical discussion on the nature of security and the possibility of a transformation in security, Chapter II prepares the theoretical framework within which the security culture discussions are situated. In this sense various International Relations theories are surveyed and their approach to a transformation in security mind-set is demonstrated wherever possible.
Chapter III focuses on several concepts that are used throughout the thesis and it specifies the nature and different dimensions of National Security Culture such as national security, national culture, identity etc. It concludes with the indicators of transformation in security culture and in this vein it proposes; style, process and outcome as parameters to see if a transformation is in place.
With Chapter IV this study put forth two alternative security cultures; European and Realpolitik. Those two alternative security mind-sets are defined and compared and based on those definitions and conceptualization, later on this study evaluates the situation of TSC as well as the transformation that is thought to be happening.
5
Lastly in Chapter V, various dimensions of TSC are laid bare and indicators and possible explanations of a European transformation in TSC are evaluated. In the finally analysis, this thesis claims that it is difficult to deny the changes taking place in Turkish Security Culture and many scholars would label these changes Europeanization with rightful reasons of their own. However within the confines of the European Security Culture definition of this thesis, it is not possible to say that a European transformation has truly taken place in TSC and no longer does Turkey operate on a Realpolitik mind-set. The argument here is that European Security Culture demands pursuing European ends with European means and in the case Turkey, it still has realpolitik goals in mind only this time it expanded it’s portfolio of tools to include European instruments as it is more probable to reach those realpolitik aspirations with European means.
6
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL APROACHES and CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS: WHAT IS SECURITY AND HOW DOES IT TRANSFORM?
2.1Security and Identity
This chapter will try to explain the nature of “Security” as an International Relations concept. In this process it will discuss why the “simple” question of “what is security” is very complicated to answer in deed. This chapter will try to identify the variables that add up to the complexity of the concept of Security, before moving on to uncovering the transformation that might be happening in the security culture of Turkey. The chapter will try to demonstrate alternative questions about Security and will continue with various theoretical approaches that are providing competing explanations for the security questions and transformation of security culture.
7
2.1.1 Understanding Security
Security matters! It is impossible to make sense of world politics without making reference to it (Williams 2008; 1). While the concept itself is very important, like many other concepts in the International Relations discipline, it has no single definition. This is partly because “what security is” and “how it is handled” differs from one place to another, from one state to the other. It is also because of the complex nature of the Security concept itself.
Security is a dynamic phenomenon that is continuously evolving into new meanings and forms such as human security, environmental security, food security, national security, etc. Throughout time and place, the meaning it has assumed varies, which is partly responsible for the different explanations that are at hand. Because of this transformation and complexity, students of security studies are constantly seeing scholars of the field trying to define security or are urging researchers and practitioners of the field to re-define/ re-conceptualize the concept over and over.1
From the first moment of our existence on planet earth, Security has always been a major issue for humanity. At many different levels, people have come to expect
1 Rethinking security by Robert Hall and Carl Fox, Rethinking Insecurity, War and Violence by
Damian Grenfell and Paul James, Rethinking Security Governance by Christopher Daase and Cornelius Friesendorf, Rethinking Security in Nigeria: Conceptual Issues in the Quest for Social Order and National Integration by Dapo Adelugba and Philip Ogo Ujomu, Rethinking Security: The Environmental Connection by Gregory D. Foster, Rethinking Security after the Cold War by Barry Buzan, Rethinking Security: Ambiguities in Policy and Theory by Simon Dolby, Rethinking Human Security by Gary King and Christopher Murray, Rethinking National Security by Theodore C. Sorensen, Re-conceptualizing Security in Mexico: In search of Security by Richard C. Rockwell and Richard H. Moss and Re-conceptualizing Security in the 21st Century: Conclusions for Research and Policy-making in the book Globalization and Environmental Challenges by Úrsula Oswald Spring and Hans Günter Brauch, and many more books and journal articles in this direction, clearly exemplifies this point.
8
violence and are exposed to security threats as part of everyday civilized life. Yet, despite contemporary experiences with violence (from small scale armed conflict to all out world war), many are surprised to learn that the troubled times of the present extend into the distant past; as far back as the early periods of human inhabitation (Martin & Frayer, 1997).
As soon as early humans appeared, they sought secure areas to dwell and they developed equipment to protect themselves, their possessions and their habitat from the predators of their time. Trying to survive in an unpredictably dangerous world, one filled with unimaginable uncertainties and powerful predators, made man understand the importance of security and pushed him to look for ways to ensure his own; through the development of fire-making, for example. Originating 1.500.000 years ago, this important advancement, which brought everyday benefits like warmth and illumination, also constituted a new instrument for humans to provide security for themselves against wild animals and predators (Thomas, 1995:90).
As early as pre-historical times, humans strove to provide security for their communities and they used all available resources for this purpose, coming up with ways to pass the information on to coming generations so as to ensure the continuity of the clan or tribe’s security. As Nash (2005) suggests, ancient cave paintings depicting scenes of war were created by the warriors of the tribe to pass on strategic information about warfare tactics, battle field planning and formations to future generations of warriors who will be in charge of the security of the
9
community.2 Training the youth of the tribe for battle and passing the information gathered by the elderly to coming generations of soldiers constituted an organized action to provide security for the community.
Thousands of years have passed since humans first appeared on earth and while many aspects of human life have changed since then, the need for security and the struggle to achieve it has not; the only difference being how humans try to ensure that security. The modern system of Sovereign States, whose origins can be traced back to 17th century, is, at its very core, about security. People yield their power to a higher authority and in turn this higher authority provides them with security. In order to escape the state of nature (where they have to provide their own security) people created states, combining their power to be safe and secure outside as well as inside.
States earn the right to internal sovereignty and become legitimate in the eyes of its population by providing for the needs of its people, security being a major one. Hence, leaders are expected to provide security for the citizens of their country. To fulfill this responsibility, the ruling authority defines the threat and comes up with solutions accordingly. If the ruled population is allowed to join in and contribute to the process of “Securitization” (the process of defining, perceiving and interpreting the threat and taking action against it), then the definition of security and the security needs of the society and the state are more likely to overlap. This contribution might take various forms, ranging from participating in elections as a
2 Detailed information about the ancient warfare and the importance of cave paintings for the
prehistoric human communities: Nash, George. 2005. "Assessing rank and warfare-strategy in prehistoric hunter-gatherer society: a study of representational warrior figures in rock-art from the Spanish Levant, southeastern Spain" In Mark P. Pearson and I. J. N. Thorpe, eds., Warfare, Violence
10
candidate or a voter to intellectual activity in related fields in order to shape and influence policy. The more the society is allowed to take place in security affairs, the more the security understandings of the state and the society will correspond. For instance, in states where free and fair elections are held periodically, where governments are accountable and all their actions are transparent, where civil society is powerful and the media is independent, different societal groups, with differing ideas about security will be able to enter into the system. Through those channels their views will be integrated into the system and in the end what the state understands from security and what it sees as the ideal instruments for providing it will converge with the views of society.
Naturally, a situation opposite to the aforementioned would create a great discrepancy between the state and society in terms of security. In this situation the security understanding and security agenda of the state and society would differ a great deal. Mugabe’s Zimbabwe is a suitable example for this case. By looking at the facts one can infer that the main threats to the Republic of Zimbabwe are the catastrophic economic conditions of the country, the lack of sanitation and clean water and infectious diseases, not military-political issues. Zimbabwe's economic crisis is so dire that the official inflation rate exceeds 100,000 percent and at least one-quarter of the population has fled the country (Hanson 2008). Grain silos across the country that once held strategic grain reserves three times the population’s annual food needs now stand empty. In the midst of its political and economic crisis, Zimbabwe is being ravaged by HIV/AIDS. The country’s HIV prevalence rate is the world’s fifth highest (Ploch, 2009; 27). However, as the security agenda is set by the authoritarian government, dangerous gaps between the
11
security needs of the society and the state inevitably appear, always at the expense of the society.
2.1.2 Globalization and transformation of Security
The primary determinants of the traditional state-centric international system have been internal and external security concerns. These concerns explain the preoccupation of states with geopolitics, strategic calculations and dilemmatic security behavior. Inevitably, security was interpreted in territorial terms and as long as the defined territory of the state is secured against aggressors, the state assumed to have security for itself.
The absolutes of the Westphalian system—territorially fixed states where everything of value lies within state borders; a single, secular authority governing each territory and representing it outside its borders; and no authority above that of the state— (Metthews, 1997:56) are thought to govern the relations among the states as well as security related matters; all defense preparations were designed accordingly. States have spent billions of dollars on defense, from large armies to small elite units, from simple equipment to the most sophisticated missile shields like the US has been trying to implement, all aiming at one particular, similar end: securing the territory of the state against any threats to state sovereignty.
According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) the world spent $1339 billion in 2007—a real-terms increase of 6 per cent over 2006 and of 45 per cent since 1998. This corresponded to 2.5 per cent of world gross domestic
12
product (GDP) and $202 for each person in the world. (The $1339 billion includes all current and capital expenditure on the armed forces, including peace keeping forces, defense ministries and other government agencies engaged in defense projects, paramilitary forces when judged to be trained, equipped and available for military operations and military space activities)3 At this point a critical question arises: Do all these efforts make the world, in general, and states, in particular, safer and more secure? The answer seems to be “NO”, as scholars and policy makers have begun to recognize that successful territorial security does not necessarily ensure the security of citizens within the state; a fact to which the examples of North Korea and Rwanda can attest, and for which Global terrorism stands as a firm example (King and Murray, 2002). This dislodging of territory as the total focus for security diversified the subjects brought under the umbrella of International Relations, putting issues like environmental change and its subsequent consequences like global warming, droughts, lack of food, lack of clean water, extinction of species and global epidemics like bird flu, swine flu or AIDS etc, onto the agenda and clearly signaled a transformation in the system and its states.
More and more International Relations scholars have started to question the states’ capacity to act in accordance with its traditionally assumed roles, as defined by the Westphalian order (Ohmae 1995, Wendt 2003, Sørensen 2001, Sørensen 2004). It is not uncommon to see the argument that the power and capacity of states have
3 Military expenditure concept also includes: personnel expenditure like; all expenditures on current
personnel, military and civil, retirement pensions of military personnel, social services for personnel and their families, operations and maintenance, procurement, military research and development, military construction, military aid (in the military expenditures of the donor country). Such area like; Civil defense, current expenditure for previous military activities, veterans benefits, demobilization, conversion of arms production facilities, destruction of weapons are excluded. SIPRI Recent trends in military expenditure, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Available at: http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/mex_trends.html
13
diminished at the hands of Globalization, which has created an increasing and deepening transformation in the states and in the system in general.
Defining Globalization is as difficult, if not more, as defining Security. That is why as, Aydınlı (2005: 231) explains, “Books on the topic of globalization often carry a tone of apology for not being able to offer a precise and generally agreed-on definition.” (Aydınlı, 2005: 232) Instead of striving to find a definition to a term that is so widely contested and has so many differing interpretations, it is more productive to identify the dimensions that give globalization the meaning it has for the world now and to mention different positions taken against globalization.
Globalization has become the most widely used – and misused – keyword in disputes in recent years, but it is also one of the most rarely defined, nebulous, misunderstood, yet politically effective concepts (Beck, 2000). It signals a number of different instruments and players in contrast to International Relations’ exclusive focus on states. First of all, globalization emphasizes a world-wide or global, rather than national, context and it suggests a process oriented “processual” approach to world affairs; we are dealing with realities in motion on the global scale (Gillian 1996). Issues, actors, and instruments which can be called the variables of the global system are neither static nor close to transformation. Globalization is a lot more dynamic and incorporative than International relations, which only recognizes the relations between the defined entities of states as crucial for assessing what is happening in the world (Gillian 1996).
14
In the final analysis, the effects of globalization are diverse and pervasive in every day life, in International relations and on Security. Globalization, as a process and as a source of transformation, poses itself as a challenge to states given that it complicates already existing security issues and also brings new issues for the states to handle. Naturally, the same challenge applies to the International Relations discipline and Security Studies as globalization and its subsequent events challenges tradition thinking and pushes the discipline for a new line of thought for the new issues and threats at hand.
As it is important to understand the notion of Security in order to be able to discuss the security culture of a country, let alone the transformation from one form to another, the next section will provide a basic discussion on Security, followed by an exploration of different approaches that are trying to explain Security.
2.2 Theoretical Approaches to Security and Transformation
2.2.1 The [Neo]-Realist Approach to Security
With the outbreak of World War II (WWII), Idealism lost a lot of ground to Realism, which had come into the International Relations discourse in response to the need to study International politics as they are, not as humans feel they should be. “People cannot, by wishing politics were different, make them so because they do not have the power; therefore, they must work within the existing power
15
structure” was the main rationale behind the formulation of a “Realist” view of International Relations (Barkin, 2003).
The concept of Security has traditionally been merged into the concept of National Security. This applies to the Realist approach in general, with its emphasis on the military capabilities of states. The end of the second greatest war waged on earth brought a new order to the world in which most of the world’s states aligned in two camps. Throughout the great rivalry of East and West, world affairs and international relations were seen through the prevailing ideological and military glasses worn by the superpowers of the time; the United States of America (USA) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) (or Союз Советских Социалистических Республик - Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik).
The military rivalry between the superpowers, who owned the means to ensure the destruction of the other, provided strong cement for state oriented world affairs and strengthened the position of the state vis-à-vis any non-state actor in the system. This very dangerous time during the Cold War years, which strengthened the state and placed it at the center of all human affairs, inevitably empowered the state-centric International Relations approach; Realism.
Realism offers a reasonably parsimonious theory that explains a large portion of world politics, as it claims (Hughes, 2000). Briefly, realism argues that states are the main unit of analysis as they are the main actors of the international system and states are motivated by power and security. In this state-centric evaluation of
16
International relations, everything revolves around the state and states take precedence over individuals who, in fact, make up the state.
In dealing with realism there are several concepts that need particular attention as they constitute the core of the realist view of International Relations and through those concepts the realist approach, with its variants, claims to explain the current situation and predict future actions.
The “State” is at the very center of the realist view of International Relations. For realism, states are unitary actors that speak with one voice and act without internal dissent on interstate issues (as if no interest groups compete within the states) (Hughes, 2000). States are taken for granted and they are regarded are rational actors which will make rational calculations to ensure their security and survival in the anarchic international system.
The State creates a hierarchical environment for humans to live in free from internal and external danger. In this environment, humans feel themselves to be safe and secure, so that they can concentrate on other aspects of life and focus on production and development. Within this structured, hierarchical environment, people know that there is a body with the relevant instruments to protect them from any type of predator. In exchange for this protection humans submit to the authority of the state and recognize it as the legitimate authority that has the power and the right to use force whenever it deems it necessary. While states provide this highly structured, tightly hierarchical order for its members, states do not exist in a similar structure with other states. Humans dwelling within a particular state recognize that
17
state as the highest authority; however states are autonomous entities that are not subordinate to any higher authority. This brings in the notion of “Anarchy” to the realist approach.
In realism, Anarchy does not mean a totally chaotic environment in utter disorder. Rather, it means the lack of a central authority to which all states would submit and recognize as a higher and legitimate power. As Mearsheimer (2001) suggests, the prevalence of anarchy in the international system is one of the bedrock assumptions of Realism; however this does not mean the system is riven by disorder (Mearsheimer, 2001). In fact, the notion of anarchy is seen as an ordering principle, which says that the system is compromised of independent states with no central authority or government above them (Mearsheimer, 2001). Anarchy is a crucial factor in understanding the system as well as state behavior. Within the state, members of the society are subordinates to the state and they constitute a community ruled by the state. On the other hand, the international system is made up of states that are sovereign units and a community of sovereigns is no community at all (Kurland, 1987).
To demonstrate how the presence of anarchy influences the system and the units within the system, Waltz (1979) points out several differences in his comparison of domestic and international structures:
“Differences between national and international structures are reflected in the ways the units of each system define their ends and develop the means for reaching them. In anarchic realms like units co-act. In hierarchic realms, unlike units interact. In anarchic realm, the units are functionally similar and tend to remain so. Like units work to maintain a measure of independence and may
18
even strive for autarchy. In hierarchical realm, the units are differentiated, and they tend to increase the extent of their specialization. Differentiated units become closely interdependent…”
Even though anarchy itself does not constitute the sole reason for violence and war in the international system, for Waltz (1979) the existence of anarchy and the absence of government are associated with the threat of violence. How would states respond to the threat of violence? How would an individual, a European or a Turk, an inhabitant of Ankara or Berlin respond to the threat of violence? Most likely, in the face of danger or threat, he or she would call the police or write a petition to the office of the public prosecutor. In general, any individual under threat would go to the higher authority to ask for protection and security. There is no higher authority that states answer to or from which they can seek protection. Under this condition, the only option left for the state is to look for ways to provide its own security, which brings in another concept of Realism: “Self help”.
Self-help simply means taking care of one’s own, in the context of states, this means taking care of your own security needs. The Self help notion intensifies the competition among states and generates a conflict prone system. Even though states come together under alliances, for realism those occasions are still examples of helping self.
To help themselves, states accumulate power and power constitutes an important aspect of Realism and Security. Power, for Waltz (1979), provides four things to the states:
“First, power provides the means of maintaining one’s autonomy in the face of force that others wield. Second, greater power
19
permits wider ranges of action, while leaving the outcomes of action uncertain…. Third, the more powerful enjoy wider margins of safety in dealing with the less powerful and have more to say about which games will be played and how…. Fourth, great power gives its possessors a big stake in their system and the ability to act for its sake…” (Waltz, 1979:47)
2.2.1.1 Transformation of Security Culture and Neo-realism
When it comes to discussing security culture and its transformation under the auspices of Neo-realism, one faces major challenges. First of all, Security culture by definition, is a product of Constructivist perspective and this perspective explains the origins security culture with individuals actions of the actors, namely security culture is a constructed product of agents not a dictation of the international system (therefore it evolves and transforms independent of system level changes such as a change in polarity). Security culture is shaped by the particular history, geography and experiences of a particular state. It is influenced by outside factors however it is also deeply attached to the domestic features of the state. However, Neo-realist tradition will deny the influence of domestic sphere and will reject state-specific explanations, as for this perspective States, no matter what happens, think and act in the same way, as they are not different from each other and as they all seek the same ends (Waltz, 1979).
Secondly, Neo-realists explain “the change” at the systemic level based on the distribution of capabilities which is defined in terms of power4, which means if any change will happen in the security equation; this will be due to the fall or rise of
4 For detailed discussion of change, power and capabilities at the system level see Mearsheimer, J. J.
20
new powers. A transformation of security understanding is not really relevant for Neo-realist security perspective.
2.2.1.2 Epilogue to [neo]-Realist Security
Even though realism, which was backed by the unique conditions of the Cold War, and was strengthened by its parsimony and effective concepts, prevailed for a long time, it did not last as the single interpretation of interstate affairs. Several variants of Realism came into being as scholars of this school began to focus on diverse aspects of international relations or interpreted state behavior in different ways. All those variants, from classical to neo or offensive to defensive, accept the basic tenets of realism while emphasizing different dimensions, like human nature versus the system or states adopting an offensive strategy in order to dominate the other states or a defensive strategy in order to ensure their security.
For realists, the meaning of “Security is subsumed under the rubric of power. Conceptually, it is synonymous with the external security of the state, which is to be achieved by increasing military capability” (Tickner, 1995: 177). With the dawn of the 1990’s, critics of Realism began to raise their voices. They heavily criticized the realist preoccupation with cross-border conflict and military power defined in terms of the interests and security of the great powers, for offering a worldview that was a poor fit with the reality of the time (Tickner, 1995). Realism’s decline in the 1990s was coupled with developments in the international arena that seemed to provide strong support for alternative approaches. The Soviet Union’s voluntary retrenchment and subsequent demise, the continuation of Western European
21
integration in the absence American-Soviet competition, the wave of democratization and economic liberalization throughout the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and the developing world the improbability of war between the great powers and the developing world, and the improbability of war between the great powers themselves, all made realism appear outdated (Jervis, 2002).
The new millennium brought newer crises and threats to the international system that seem to make Realism relevant again. Moreover, it should be noted that not all states or regions are experiencing the same level of positive progress in terms of war and security. Therefore, the Realist Security understanding still holds a relatively strong position.
2.1.2 Liberalism and Security
The liberal tradition in thinking about Security dates as far back as the philosopher Immanuel Kant, who emphasized the importance of republican constitutions in generating peace within the system and among the states (Kornelia, 2008). In today’s International Relations and diplomacy, using the concept of “Road Map”, which implies a plan of action detailing the steps for the ultimate resolution of a certain problem or conflict, is very common when parties are trying to resolve a dispute (Road map for solving Israeli-Palestine conflict, Turkish-Armenian problems or Cyprus issue etc). In this regard, Kant’s “Perpetual Peace” is his road map for peace, with its preliminary and definitive articles as well as its guarantees for peace.
22
To understand how Liberalism sees the system and how it interprets the concept of “Security”, it is useful to examine the articles of the Perpetual Peace, through which Kant explicitly and implicitly describes what peace and security is all about. The preliminary articles are:
1. “No conclusion of peace shall be considered valid . . . if it was made with a secret reservation . . . for a future war.”
Realism dictates that a self help notion prevails in the system. In such a system, a state can not trust any other actor as there is no higher place to look for justice or protection. With the first preliminary article, Kant addresses the lack of trust issue and tries to prevent this from becoming an obstacle to Peace. A lack of trust will lead to an abundant fear of cheating, which will result in a lack of cooperation as each side attempts to gain and secure as much as possible; this behavior will trigger the other side to do the same, leading to the eventual failure of peace.
2. “No independently existing state, whether it is large or small, may be acquired by or come under domination of another state by inheritance, exchange, purchase or gift or any other way of exchange.”
A state is not, like the ground which it occupies, a piece of property (patrimonium). It is a society of men whom no one else has any right to command or to dispose of except the state itself. Incorporating the state into another state contradicts the idea of the original contract, without which no legitimate right over a people can be conceived (Smith, 1992).
23
3. “Standing armies (miles perpetuus) will gradually be abolished altogether.”
Almost all organisms have their own defensive mechanisms; for states, these mechanisms are armies. However, keeping such a power always at hand brings with it the possibility of resorting to force to resolve differences. Combined with other articles, armies will not be needed for security in a system where trust prevails and threats are eliminated.
4. “National debt shall not be contracted in connection with the external affairs of the state.”
War is a great expense for the state. An important amount of financial resources are required to undertake a war against other parties. If money is always available for this purpose it will create greater inclination towards resorting to warfare. Therefore, providing credit and money to fighting parties is an important source of problems that needs to be eliminated for perpetual peace and security.
5. “No state shall forcibly interfere in the constitution, government and affairs of another state.”
Nothing can justify intervention into another state’s affairs. It will constitute a negative example for the rest of the world. This aspect of Kantian understanding is a source of debate when it comes to humanitarian intervention. In traditional terms, security threats are directed towards the state from outside and states provide security for themselves and for their citizens, however, in today’s world the state itself might become a security threat, not only to other states, but also primarily to its own citizens. “Failed states” are a prominent example of this. For Kant, Security can be provided for all as long as every state deals only with its own affairs and
24
refrains from intervening in the affairs of others; yet a non-traditional understanding of Security will not be served in this way.
6. “No State shall, during war, permit such acts of hostility which would make mutual confidence in the subsequent peace impossible: these intolerable acts are the employment of assassins to exterminate the leaders, and incitement to treason in the adversary.”
Warfare is mostly about violence, yet still there has to be justice in war. In the occasion of a war, the aim should be resolving the problem by making the other side accept your terms, not annihilating the other side nor inflicting irreparable damage. Such extreme acts will demolish trust in the system and will increase the fear of other states. Therefore, states, for the sake of earning the upper hand in current affairs, should not resort to ways that will destroy security and peace in the future.5
2.2.2.1 Democratic Peace Theory
In 1983, Doyle published “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs,” which drew attention to the existence of the democratic peace (DP). Doyle’s theory is predicated on the idea that states that adhere to liberal principles “enjoy a separate peace among them, but are likely to wage war against non-liberal states
5 Definitive articles of the Perpetual Peace are: One: The Civil Constitution of Every State Should
Be Republican, Two: The Law of Nations Shall be Founded on a Federation of Free States, Three: The Law of World Citizenship Shall Be Limited to Conditions of Universal Hospitality. In addition to preliminary and definitive articles, there are two supplements that are A. Of the Guarantee for Perpetual Peace and B. Secret Article for Perpetual Peace. Kant, Immanuel. 1992. Perpetual Peace. M. Campell Smith, trans. Bristol: Thoemmes Press.
25
Jones 1999, xiv).” This philosophy was set forth by Immanuel Kant in 1795 and, for Doyle, Kant’s notion of the “Perpetual Peace” provides the best explanation for the DP (Lynn-Jones 1999, xv). He proposes a theory based on structure-centered liberalism, which emphasizes the domestic institutions of states in order to explain their international behavior. There are three structural dimensions of the domestic polity: political structure – regime type (democracy vs. dictatorship); economic structure – type of economic system (capitalist vs. command economy); and domestic social structures – commonly shared ideas on truth or appropriateness (ideologies, identities, etc). Unlike other DP theories, the key for Doyle is the state’s commitment to liberalism, the essential principle of which is freedom of the individual (Russett 1999, 59).
The other “founding” DP theories are generally divided into two categories: structural and normative (Owen, 1994). The structural theory holds that the constraints within a democracy, such as checks and balances, division of power and public interest, will reduce the likelihood of war. Leaders must “ensure broad popular support, manifested in various institutions of government,” which means they are unlikely to propose any war they know will be unpopular (Russett 1993, 101). These same leaders must run for reelection, so they are unlikely to wage a war they don’t think they can win. Additionally, mobilizing for war is a time consuming process in a democracy and it is also a public endeavor, so other states can easily ascertain their intentions. Perceptions matter because, if democratic leaders generally assume that all other democratic leaders will be like they are, slow and reluctant to fight, then they will not fear an attack from that country. They will likely settle their disagreements without war (Russett 1993). Violent conflicts will
26
be frequent with non-democracies, however, because non-democratic leaders know that democratic leaders are constrained and will push democracies to make concessions over issues of conflict. Democracies may respond with large-scale violence rather than make the concessions (Russett 1993).
Normative theories, on the other hand, hold that there is a powerful norm within democratic countries of non-violence toward other democracies. Democratic governments generally guarantee rights of self-determination for their citizens and engage in non-violent conflict resolution domestically. Therefore, citizens in one democracy will respect the rights of citizens in another democracy and apply domestic conflict resolution practices to the international level; this results in a “transnational democratic culture” (Russett 1993). Again, perception is crucial because this norm does not apply to non-democratic countries; they are presumed to be aggressive enemies. Non-democracies use violence or violent threats to govern their people, so it is assumed that they would do so at the international level; hence, the norm of non-violence does not apply (Russett 1993).
The DP has “nearly become a truism” and has been referred to as the “closest thing we have to an empirical law in the study of international relations” (Owen, 1994). Its weaknesses, therefore, focus on issues of definition, measurement and causation. How one defines ‘democracy’ and ‘war’ is pretty subjective and this “provides a temptation to tautology” (Owen, 1994). Scholars can easily define and measure these terms so that, when empirically tested, the DP proposition is upheld. More importantly, DP scholars have failed to identify the causal mechanism (thereby proving that the connection between democracy and peace is not just spurious)
27
behind the theory (Lynn-Jones 1999, xi-xii). Even DP theorists, like John Owen, admit that they “do not really know the causal mechanism behind the democratic peace [and this] means we cannot be certain the peace is genuine” (Owen, 1994). DP scholars must come to a consensus on definition and measurement issues so that they can nail down the causal mechanism(s).
2.2.2.2 Transformation of Security/Culture and Liberalism
When it comes to the transformation of Security as a concept and the understanding of security in general, Liberalism is more open and permissive than Realism. However, as Liberalism also operates with similar parameters as Realism when it comes to explaining the basics of the international order, it will not predict a radical transformation in the security understanding of a state. For Liberalism, states remain the dominant actors compared to sub- or supra-national actors and a real-politik security understanding with a Liberal flavor will remain in control of the system in general and security understanding in particular.
Liberalism suffered the labels of idealism and even utopianism because of its optimistic views on peace and Security in the world. Liberalism claims that security can be achieved without racing or defeating others and peace can be established if certain values and norms are achieved. Even though Liberalism shares important aspects with Realism, like the prominence of states as the most important actor in the system, there are certain differences as far as how states, politics within the states and the behavior of states are understood. For Liberalism, states are important actors but not the only ones. Non-state actors play a part in the system as well and
28
recent events demonstrate that non-state actors might become a major source of insecurity for states; the provision of security depends on how they are handled and accommodated within the system.
Another difference is how Liberalism sees the power of the system over the states. Even though the system is the environment in which states exist and interact, their behavior is not dictated solely by the system. Their behavior is determined by their preferences, not only by their power and status in the system; the Turkish decision to abolish the use of anti-personnel land mines exemplifies this. Anti-personnel land mines might be seen as practical and useful for a state that has extended land borders with its neighbors as the placement of mines might generate power for the owner. Yet Turkey preferred not to place those mines on its territory anymore, nor store them for future use, by becoming a signatory country to the Ottawa treaty. It was not the idea of power, but the preferences of the Turkish state (in line with its Europeanization process) that made Turkey decide on such a course of action.
In conclusion, Liberalism, even though is employs similar views on states’ prominence in the system, provides an alternative outlook to states and Security by including the non-states actors of the system and by acknowledging the power of states’ preferences in determining their actions. This definitely influences how it understands and provides Security for states and the rest of the actors.
29
2.2.3 Critical theory and Critical Security
Seeing the immense destructiveness of World War I (WWI), scholars, scientists and educated minds of the time felt the need for research to find ways to establish peace on earth, looking to understand why wars took place and conflicts occurred so as to prevent them from happening. Liberalism dominated the scene with its emphasis on humans, cooperation and economic interdependence. The rise of fascist regimes and the outbreak of the WWII replaced the optimism of Liberalism with the pessimism of Realism. Liberalism and Realism, as the mainstream approaches to International Relations, dominated the field. On the other hand, alternative and voices that are critical of the mainstream did not stop joining the International Relations debates, Critical Theory being one. Compared to Realism and Liberalism, Critical theory and critical security studies are relatively new as it started to exert more influence from 1990’s onwards. However according to Bilgin (2005:89) the ideas on which critical security studies are based and the calls for alternative outlooks to those infected by the Cold War, goes back way before than the 1990’s, as Cold War categories have restricted the ways of thinking about and doing security for the International Relations field (Bilgin, 2008). Linklater’s (2007:45) writings support this view as he claims Marxian-inspired critical theory has exercised significant influence on International Relations theory and has emerged as a serious alternative to orthodox views in the International Relations field.
The important question to answer here is “Why Critical Theory is critical, and what is it critical of? While it is impossible to fit the whole of the Critical Security literature here in this chapter, briefly, one might say that it is critical compared to
30
“mainstream” theories because, as a social theory, critical theory refuses to take the outside world as a given and tries to question the very foundations upon which the accepted assumptions about the world are based. It denies the applicability of the empirical approaches to the social world and questions the reliability of the knowledge generated via unreliable methodology. In terms of International Relations and for the concept of Security, Critical theory questions basic concepts like State, Interest, Power or the meaning of Security, which are accepted as they are and assumed to remain static by the traditional International Relations approaches (Realism and Liberalism).
Critical theory explains the subjective nature of security and emphasizes the fact that security is bound to the inter-subjective creation of humans, societies and states. Security is what people/states make of it. “It is an epiphenomenon inter-subjectively created. Different world views and discourses about politics deliver different views and discourses about security” (Booth, 1994).
The Welsh school of Critical Security Studies prefers “politicizing security” and Bilgin (2008) puts forward three arguments (analytical, strategic and ethico-political) to demonstrate the merits of this attitude. First of all, addressing non-traditional security threats (such as HIV/AIDS) as “global security threats” helps to mobilize more resources and raise more awareness (analytical argument), which secures better results in terms of remedies for the problem. Secondly, in order not to leave the existential threats merely at the hands of the state’s elite, whose way of handling those threats will be based on zero-sum games and traditional military methods (strategic argument), “politicizing security” is the key element. Lastly,
31
“politicizing security” (ethico-political argument) broadens the security agenda, that used to be based on the policy preferences of the defining elite, to include the other portions of the society and their security concerns.
In the final analysis, critical theory is critical of power politics as power politics and its affiliated theories are the creations of powerful groups/states that use them to protect their acquired power. Being critical of the traditional lines of thought about how security is understood and what is included in it, Critical security studies put forward the argument that the discipline of International Relations is the evolution of human consciousness about living globally and politics on a global scale; and “Emancipation” is the major organizing principle. Booth summarizes the emancipation as “Bread, Knowledge and Freedom” in which bread symbolizes unobstructed access to materials and the satisfaction of material needs, knowledge symbolizes freedom from lies and information distortion and, finally, freedom symbolizes freedom from oppression (Booth, 2009).
2.2.4 The English School, International Society and Security
“The foundation of English School theory is the idea that international system, international society and world society all exist simultaneously, both as objects of discussion and as aspects of international reality” (Buzan, 2004). The key terms for the English School are “Order” and “International Society”. Bull and Watson (1984:1) describe International Society as such:
“By an international society we mean a group of states (or more generally a group of interdependent political communities) which
32
not merely for a system, in the sense that the behavior of each is a necessary factor in the calculations of the others, but also have established by dialogue and consent common rules and institutions for the conduct of their relations, and recognize their common interest in maintaining these arrangements”
In the last twenty years, with the writings of Bull, Wight, Linklater, Jones, Suganami, Dunne and several others, the English School earned itself a place in academic debates as an alternative approach to understanding International Relations. Linklater (2006) mentions three dimensions or “inter-related orientations” in the English School’s way of investigating and evaluating international affairs. Those three orientations, he labels as: “Structural, Functional and Historical” and he gives Manning’s The nature of International Society (1975) (Structural), Bull’s famous Anarchical Society (1977) (Structural and Functional), Vincent’s Non-intervention and International Order (1974) (Functional), Wight’s
System of States (1977) (Historical) and Buzan and Little’s International Systems in
World History (2000) (Historical), as academic works outlining those orientations.
Bull’s well known definition of International Society indicates that international society exists because states are conscious of certain common interests and values and they consider themselves to be bound by a common set of rules; these rules define the nature, and the modes, of relations in the International Society as well as the institutions that regulate those relations among the members of the society (Dunne and Wheeler, 1996). Security needs to be understood in this context. For the English School, security constitutes a normative value and thus is subject to change from place to place and from time to time. For instance, what security meant for pre-historic cavemen is different than what it meant for medieval
33
merchants of Europe. It meant one thing for Machiavelli and something else for Grotius. Similarly, security is defined by the society living within the state and whatever makes them feel insecure and unsafe, influences how they perceive and define security. This logic implies that security is prone to transformation in line with the transformation in the society’s interpretation of security and perception of threat.
An important problem surrounding the English School is that the boundaries between the English School and traditionalist theories such as Liberalism and Realism are not clear when it comes to certain issues. The English School and more specifically, the Pluralist factions within the English School, and main stream theories share common views on the nature of sovereignty and centrality of state. On the other hand, Solidarism factions of the English School support the idea that the values, identity and individual cultures of the states matters on the grand scale, a point of common ground with liberal theory.
All in all, security is an important common and normative value for the English School and the security of the whole society is important for the security of the individual members of the international society. What security means for the society is bound to change depending on the time and space. Therefore, it is comfortable to say that security culture is open to change.
